BMA annual representative meeting: Sperm donors should be guaranteed anonymity
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
The BMA has reiterated its view that sperm donors should be guaranteed anonymity. Representatives defeated a motion saying that sperm donors should not be given anonymity in future, despite the fact that the government was moving towards that position. The government has proposed that anonymity should be removed from April 2005, though it has specified that the change will not be retrospective.
Arguing that donors should not be guaranteed anonymity, Dr Geoffrey Lewis from the Leicestershire and Rutland division referred to the effect of anonymity on the offspring of donor inseminated adults. Although such people could obtain non-identifiable information about donors this was not sufficient for many people who wanted to find out about their family history. In some people, the lack of information caused psychological harm.
Dr Lewis said that although people thought there was a risk that the removal of anonymity would reduce the number of donors, that had not happened in Sweden, where anonymity was removed in 1985, though the profile of donors had changed. The number of donors among medical students declined, to be replaced by older, married men in their 30s. Anonymity was removed in Austria and Switzerland in 1992, and in the Netherlands in 2002.
But Professor Peter Dangerfield, a member of the Medical Academic Staff Committee, opposed the motion that sperm donors should not be given anonymity in future. He said that there was evidence that there would be a reduction in the number of sperm donors if anonymity was removed. And Dr Sam Everington, a council member, pointed out that the replacement of younger donors by older people might not prove to be the answer if the law changed, as some clinics did not accept donors over the age of 45.(BMJ Linda Beecham)
Arguing that donors should not be guaranteed anonymity, Dr Geoffrey Lewis from the Leicestershire and Rutland division referred to the effect of anonymity on the offspring of donor inseminated adults. Although such people could obtain non-identifiable information about donors this was not sufficient for many people who wanted to find out about their family history. In some people, the lack of information caused psychological harm.
Dr Lewis said that although people thought there was a risk that the removal of anonymity would reduce the number of donors, that had not happened in Sweden, where anonymity was removed in 1985, though the profile of donors had changed. The number of donors among medical students declined, to be replaced by older, married men in their 30s. Anonymity was removed in Austria and Switzerland in 1992, and in the Netherlands in 2002.
But Professor Peter Dangerfield, a member of the Medical Academic Staff Committee, opposed the motion that sperm donors should not be given anonymity in future. He said that there was evidence that there would be a reduction in the number of sperm donors if anonymity was removed. And Dr Sam Everington, a council member, pointed out that the replacement of younger donors by older people might not prove to be the answer if the law changed, as some clinics did not accept donors over the age of 45.(BMJ Linda Beecham)